VegasWinner
Well-Known Member
The person performing the test effects the outcome of the test. scientific fact. do you understand what that means?
Quantum Theory Demonstrated: Observation Affects Reality
- Thread starter VegasWinner
- Start date
VegasWinner
Well-Known Member
What is obvious to me is attacking me seems more important to some people than anything else. If you need to attack everything I post or say, that says a lot about you the poster not me.
namaste
namaste
nfhiggs
Well-Known Member
"Apart from "observing," or detecting, the electrons, the detector had no effect on the current."
Utter and complete BS. If the passing electron effects the detection field, then the field affects the electron as well. There are no one-way interactions even at the quantum level. Only nutjobs and flakes think this has anything to do with "the desires of the observer", its simply the observer interacting with the experiment, by the METHOD of his observation, not the act of observing..
Utter and complete BS. If the passing electron effects the detection field, then the field affects the electron as well. There are no one-way interactions even at the quantum level. Only nutjobs and flakes think this has anything to do with "the desires of the observer", its simply the observer interacting with the experiment, by the METHOD of his observation, not the act of observing..
VegasWinner
Well-Known Member
It has to do with testing and analysis, something you guys are doing around here daily. Did you read the article or watch the video?
The scientific conclusion is that the tester effects the outcome based on preconceived beliefs. This is science. Where would you like to put science while using science to design lighting systems.
Donb't you think the sdcience of testing should be a part of what goes on? Does it matter where I post threads. you have a problem with me?
jonsnow399
Well-Known Member
Its called confirmation bias, its been known a long time.
VegasWinner
Well-Known Member
now there is scientific evidence to support the known activity of bias. I have been aware of the bias as all human nature possess the same bias to always be correct. thank-you for your observation.
namste
VegasWinner
Well-Known Member
There is a scientific manner to reduce the known bias, it is called double blind testing. Once the tester tests with known products, and the second test is done without knowing which product is being tested and compare the outcomes and see the bias and adjust for it. It is not difficult, but it takes an awareness, which is why most testing is done by a disinterested third party.
namaste
namaste
CobKits
Well-Known Member
confirmation bias only exists when measurements are subjective. The premise of this thread is literally absurd to assume that every measurement that exists in science has the uncertainty of a quantum particle. For example ill take the only measurements i present here, PPFD/W measurements. i cant even see trends when im measuring and recording data, thats like 2 steps later when i get it into excel. the data is what it is all i can do is try to be as repeatable as possible when measuring
if you think people here are presenting biased data then call them out on it. Passive aggressive threads suggesting as much are literally useless
if you think people here are presenting biased data then call them out on it. Passive aggressive threads suggesting as much are literally useless
Last edited:
CobKits
Well-Known Member
yes, great for subjective observations, no such animal exists or is necessary when you have quantifiable measurements. its either repeatable or not there is no middle ground
OLD MOTHER SATIVA
Well-Known Member
here is as deep as i can go..blame it on Woodstock
"our thoughts influencing out comes might make sense if we were/are a figment of our own or someone elses./"somethings" imagination"
and in this day and age..i am not so sure now..
"our thoughts influencing out comes might make sense if we were/are a figment of our own or someone elses./"somethings" imagination"
and in this day and age..i am not so sure now..
VegasWinner
Well-Known Member
namaste
dirtWeevil
Well-Known Member
this could explain the nuts and bolts of weeping angels
VegasWinner
Well-Known Member
Do atoms going through a double slit ‘know’ if they are being observed?
May 26, 2015 17 comments
Position problems: Wave or particle behaviour at play?
Does a massive quantum particle – such as an atom – in a double-slit experiment behave differently depending on when it is observed? John Wheeler's famous "delayed choice" Gedankenexperiment asked this question in 1978, and the answer has now been experimentally realized with massive particles for the first time. The result demonstrates that it does not make sense to decide whether a massive particle can be described by its wave or particle behaviour until a measurement has been made. The techniques used could have practical applications for future physics research, and perhaps for information theory.
In the famous double-slit experiment, single particles, such as photons, pass one at a time through a screen containing two slits. If either path is monitored, a photon seemingly passes through one slit or the other, and no interference will be seen. Conversely, if neither is checked, a photon will appear to have passed through both slits simultaneously before interfering with itself, acting like a wave. In 1978 American theoretical physicist John Wheeler proposed a series of thought experiments wherein he wondered whether a particle apparently going through a slit could be considered to have a well-defined trajectory, in which it passes through one slit or both. In the experiments, the decision to observe the photons is made only after they have been emitted, thereby testing the possible effects of the observer.
For example, what happens if the decision to open or close one of the slits is made after the particle has committed to pass through one slit or both? If an interference pattern is still seen when the second slit is opened, this would force us either to conclude that our decision to measure the particle's path affects its past decision about which path to take, or to abandon the classical concept that a particle's position is defined independent of our measurement.
Photon first
While Wheeler conceived of this purely as a thought experiment, experimental advances allowed Alain Aspect and colleagues at the Institut d'Optique, Ecole Normale Supérieure de Cachan and the National Centre for Scientific Research, all in France, to actually perform it in 2007 with single photons, using beamsplitters in place of the slits envisage by Wheeler. By inserting or removing a second beamsplitter randomly, the researchers could either recombine the two paths or leave them separate, making it impossible for an observer to know which path a photon had taken. They showed that if the second beamsplitter was inserted, even after the photon would have passed the first, an interference pattern was created.
The wave–particle duality of quantum mechanics dictates that all quantum objects, massive or otherwise, can behave as either waves or particles. Now, Andrew Truscott and colleagues at Australian National University carried out Wheeler's experiment using atoms deflected by laser pulses in place of photons deflected by mirrors and beamsplitters. The helium atoms, released one by one from an optical dipole trap, fell under gravity until they were hit by a laser pulse, which deflected them into an equal superposition of two momentum states travelling in different directions with an adjustable phase difference. This was the first "beamsplitter". The researchers then decide whether to apply a second laser pulse to recombine the two states and create mixed states – one formed by adding the two waves and one formed by subtracting them – by using a quantum random-number generator. When applied, this final laser pulse made it impossible to tell which of the two paths the photon had travelled along. The team ran the experiment repeatedly, varying the phase difference between the paths.
Double pulse
Truscott's team found that when the second laser pulse was not applied, the probability of the atom being detected in each of the momentum states was 0.5, regardless of the phase lag between the two. However, application of the second pulse produced a distinct sine-wave interference pattern. When the waves were perfectly in phase on arrival at the beamsplitter, they interfered constructively, always entering the state formed by adding them. When the waves were in antiphase, however, they interfered destructively and were always found in the state formed by subtracting them. This means that accepting our classical intuition about particles travelling well-defined paths would indeed force us into accepting backward causation. "I can't prove that isn't what occurs," says Truscott, "But 99.999% of physicists would say that the measurement – i.e. whether the beamsplitter is in or out – brings the observable into reality, and at that point the particle decides whether to be a wave or a particle."
Indeed, the results of both Truscott and Aspect's experiments shows that a particle's wave or particle nature is most likely undefined until a measurement is made. The other less likely option would be that of backward causation – that the particle somehow has information from the future – but this involves sending a message faster than light, which is forbidden by the rules of relativity.
Aspect is impressed. "It's very, very nice work," he says, "Of course, in this kind of thing there is no more real surprise, but it's a beautiful achievement." He adds that, beyond curiosity, the technology developed may have practical applications. "The fact that you can master single atoms with this degree of accuracy may be useful in quantum information," he says.
The research is published in Nature Physics.
About the author
Tim Wogan is a science writer based in the UK
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2015/may/26/do-atoms-going-through-a-double-slit-know-if-they-are-being-observed
says Truscott, "But 99.999% of physicists would say that the measurement – i.e. whether the beamsplitter is in or out – brings the observable into reality, and at that point the particle decides whether to be a wave or a particle."
Observer effects the observation.
May 26, 2015 17 comments
Position problems: Wave or particle behaviour at play?
Does a massive quantum particle – such as an atom – in a double-slit experiment behave differently depending on when it is observed? John Wheeler's famous "delayed choice" Gedankenexperiment asked this question in 1978, and the answer has now been experimentally realized with massive particles for the first time. The result demonstrates that it does not make sense to decide whether a massive particle can be described by its wave or particle behaviour until a measurement has been made. The techniques used could have practical applications for future physics research, and perhaps for information theory.
In the famous double-slit experiment, single particles, such as photons, pass one at a time through a screen containing two slits. If either path is monitored, a photon seemingly passes through one slit or the other, and no interference will be seen. Conversely, if neither is checked, a photon will appear to have passed through both slits simultaneously before interfering with itself, acting like a wave. In 1978 American theoretical physicist John Wheeler proposed a series of thought experiments wherein he wondered whether a particle apparently going through a slit could be considered to have a well-defined trajectory, in which it passes through one slit or both. In the experiments, the decision to observe the photons is made only after they have been emitted, thereby testing the possible effects of the observer.
For example, what happens if the decision to open or close one of the slits is made after the particle has committed to pass through one slit or both? If an interference pattern is still seen when the second slit is opened, this would force us either to conclude that our decision to measure the particle's path affects its past decision about which path to take, or to abandon the classical concept that a particle's position is defined independent of our measurement.
Photon first
While Wheeler conceived of this purely as a thought experiment, experimental advances allowed Alain Aspect and colleagues at the Institut d'Optique, Ecole Normale Supérieure de Cachan and the National Centre for Scientific Research, all in France, to actually perform it in 2007 with single photons, using beamsplitters in place of the slits envisage by Wheeler. By inserting or removing a second beamsplitter randomly, the researchers could either recombine the two paths or leave them separate, making it impossible for an observer to know which path a photon had taken. They showed that if the second beamsplitter was inserted, even after the photon would have passed the first, an interference pattern was created.
The wave–particle duality of quantum mechanics dictates that all quantum objects, massive or otherwise, can behave as either waves or particles. Now, Andrew Truscott and colleagues at Australian National University carried out Wheeler's experiment using atoms deflected by laser pulses in place of photons deflected by mirrors and beamsplitters. The helium atoms, released one by one from an optical dipole trap, fell under gravity until they were hit by a laser pulse, which deflected them into an equal superposition of two momentum states travelling in different directions with an adjustable phase difference. This was the first "beamsplitter". The researchers then decide whether to apply a second laser pulse to recombine the two states and create mixed states – one formed by adding the two waves and one formed by subtracting them – by using a quantum random-number generator. When applied, this final laser pulse made it impossible to tell which of the two paths the photon had travelled along. The team ran the experiment repeatedly, varying the phase difference between the paths.
Double pulse
Truscott's team found that when the second laser pulse was not applied, the probability of the atom being detected in each of the momentum states was 0.5, regardless of the phase lag between the two. However, application of the second pulse produced a distinct sine-wave interference pattern. When the waves were perfectly in phase on arrival at the beamsplitter, they interfered constructively, always entering the state formed by adding them. When the waves were in antiphase, however, they interfered destructively and were always found in the state formed by subtracting them. This means that accepting our classical intuition about particles travelling well-defined paths would indeed force us into accepting backward causation. "I can't prove that isn't what occurs," says Truscott, "But 99.999% of physicists would say that the measurement – i.e. whether the beamsplitter is in or out – brings the observable into reality, and at that point the particle decides whether to be a wave or a particle."
Indeed, the results of both Truscott and Aspect's experiments shows that a particle's wave or particle nature is most likely undefined until a measurement is made. The other less likely option would be that of backward causation – that the particle somehow has information from the future – but this involves sending a message faster than light, which is forbidden by the rules of relativity.
Aspect is impressed. "It's very, very nice work," he says, "Of course, in this kind of thing there is no more real surprise, but it's a beautiful achievement." He adds that, beyond curiosity, the technology developed may have practical applications. "The fact that you can master single atoms with this degree of accuracy may be useful in quantum information," he says.
The research is published in Nature Physics.
About the author
Tim Wogan is a science writer based in the UK
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2015/may/26/do-atoms-going-through-a-double-slit-know-if-they-are-being-observed
says Truscott, "But 99.999% of physicists would say that the measurement – i.e. whether the beamsplitter is in or out – brings the observable into reality, and at that point the particle decides whether to be a wave or a particle."
Observer effects the observation.
VegasWinner
Well-Known Member
n the double slit experiment what is it about observation that changes the way the molecules behave? Is it the simple act of observation or a disruption from the observation equipment?[/highlight]
The double slit experiment, visualized (Source)
That experiment is one example of the observer effect. Anytime measuring (or observing) something causes a change in the original state, this is called the observer effect. Though we do have this problem in the double slit experiment, quantum mechanics is not the only place it shows up.
Outside of the context of the double slit experiment, both the equipment and the observation could change the original state to be measured. An easy example of equipment interfering is a thermometer. The mere presence of a thermometer will either raise or lower the heat of whatever you are trying to measure.
What About the Experiment Itself?
The equipment certainly has the possibility of causing the observer effect, but even if the equipment were perfect, we would still have the same problem. I once heard an excellent analogy that does a good job of explaining the principle. It goes as follows:
“Imagine that you’re blind and over time you’ve developed a technique for determining how far away an object is by throwing a medicine ball at it. If you throw your medicine ball at a nearby stool, the ball will return quickly, and you’ll know that it’s close. If you throw the ball at something across the street from you, it’ll take longer to return, and you’ll know that the object is far away.”
“The problem is that when you throw a ball — especially a heavy one like a medicine ball — at something like a stool, the ball will knock the stool across the room and may even have enough momentum to bounce back. You can say where the stool was, but not where it is now. What’s more, you could calculate the velocity of the stool after you hit it with the ball, but you have no idea what its velocity was before you hit it.”
[Reference: How Stuff Works]
The Observer Effect in principle (Credit: Quantum Magic Group)
Where Things Get Tricky:
When we start working with very small amounts of energy, we notice a problem: light, the means by which we observe most things, is itself powerful enough to completely change what is going on. So light would be the medicine ball in the analogy. It is energetic enough to cause significant changes on a quantum scale.
Any attempt to measure something on the quantum scale will invariably result in altering what you were trying to measure at the start. Sometimes, this isn’t that big of a problem, but then again, sometimes it is (as seen in the double slit experiment). To be clear, having observed something doesn’t change anything, but the nature of how something is observed is what is causing the observer effect.
So in short, the equipment we use is perfectly capable of distorting our results, but we can expect a baseline of error simply by observing it in the first place.
https://futurism.com/how-does-observing-particles-influence-their-behavior/
The double slit experiment, visualized (Source)
That experiment is one example of the observer effect. Anytime measuring (or observing) something causes a change in the original state, this is called the observer effect. Though we do have this problem in the double slit experiment, quantum mechanics is not the only place it shows up.
Outside of the context of the double slit experiment, both the equipment and the observation could change the original state to be measured. An easy example of equipment interfering is a thermometer. The mere presence of a thermometer will either raise or lower the heat of whatever you are trying to measure.
What About the Experiment Itself?
The equipment certainly has the possibility of causing the observer effect, but even if the equipment were perfect, we would still have the same problem. I once heard an excellent analogy that does a good job of explaining the principle. It goes as follows:
“Imagine that you’re blind and over time you’ve developed a technique for determining how far away an object is by throwing a medicine ball at it. If you throw your medicine ball at a nearby stool, the ball will return quickly, and you’ll know that it’s close. If you throw the ball at something across the street from you, it’ll take longer to return, and you’ll know that the object is far away.”
“The problem is that when you throw a ball — especially a heavy one like a medicine ball — at something like a stool, the ball will knock the stool across the room and may even have enough momentum to bounce back. You can say where the stool was, but not where it is now. What’s more, you could calculate the velocity of the stool after you hit it with the ball, but you have no idea what its velocity was before you hit it.”
[Reference: How Stuff Works]
The Observer Effect in principle (Credit: Quantum Magic Group)
Where Things Get Tricky:
When we start working with very small amounts of energy, we notice a problem: light, the means by which we observe most things, is itself powerful enough to completely change what is going on. So light would be the medicine ball in the analogy. It is energetic enough to cause significant changes on a quantum scale.
Any attempt to measure something on the quantum scale will invariably result in altering what you were trying to measure at the start. Sometimes, this isn’t that big of a problem, but then again, sometimes it is (as seen in the double slit experiment). To be clear, having observed something doesn’t change anything, but the nature of how something is observed is what is causing the observer effect.
So in short, the equipment we use is perfectly capable of distorting our results, but we can expect a baseline of error simply by observing it in the first place.
https://futurism.com/how-does-observing-particles-influence-their-behavior/
But that is "confirmation bias" or "self fulfilling prophecy" - it's a result of semi/unconcious cognitive processes, not a result of quantum mechanics.
Though I don't deny that it is a fascinating experiment.